'Not metoo' feature

'Not metoo' feature

[Ben Schmidt]

Hi!

I think I've decided now that I will be switching to mlmmj for my mailing lists. 
Not all that big or exciting, but they keep my part of the world a little smoother 
than without them, and the easier the software makes it for me to manage them, the 
better.

As I think through the things in Mailman that I used to use before deciding I'd 
like to switch, a feature I'd be interested in having is a 'not metoo' feature. 
This means when the manager sends out an email it omits the sender from the 
distribution list.

How easy would this be to add? I'd be happy to have a shot at doing it myself, 
though I'd love some pointers as to which part of the source code to look at. And 
of course, I wouldn't complain if someone else would like to do it, but obviously 
I don't expect that!

Grins,

Ben.

Re: 'Not metoo' feature

[Franky Van Liedekerke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1652 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Ben Schmidt
<mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.au>wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I think I've decided now that I will be switching to mlmmj for my mailing
> lists. Not all that big or exciting, but they keep my part of the world a
> little smoother than without them, and the easier the software makes it for
> me to manage them, the better.
>
> As I think through the things in Mailman that I used to use before deciding
> I'd like to switch, a feature I'd be interested in having is a 'not metoo'
> feature. This means when the manager sends out an email it omits the sender
> from the distribution list.
>
> How easy would this be to add? I'd be happy to have a shot at doing it
> myself, though I'd love some pointers as to which part of the source code to
> look at. And of course, I wouldn't complain if someone else would like to do
> it, but obviously I don't expect that!
>
>
Well, I've looked a bit at the code before, and I think it's quite easy to
accomplish: create a new option for activation/deactivation of this (would
result in the touch of a file) and if present, compare the senders email
with the ones in the list while looping and sending, and ommit sending when
it is equal. Would be worth a shot trying to code, since I've run out of
episodes of "One Piece" to look at :-)
Let me see what I can come up with this evening.

Btw, the latest version is at http://mlmmj.mmj.dk/files/, there's a bit of
mixing up going on here: the website is http://mlmmj.org, the mailing list
archive there points to http://mlmmj.org/archive/index.html, but the archive
up to date is at http://mlmmj.org/archive/mlmmj/date.html

Franky

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2197 bytes --]

Re: 'Not metoo' feature

[Franky Van Liedekerke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2151 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Franky Van Liedekerke
<liedekef@telenet.be>wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Ben Schmidt <
> mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I think I've decided now that I will be switching to mlmmj for my mailing
>> lists. Not all that big or exciting, but they keep my part of the world a
>> little smoother than without them, and the easier the software makes it for
>> me to manage them, the better.
>>
>> As I think through the things in Mailman that I used to use before
>> deciding I'd like to switch, a feature I'd be interested in having is a 'not
>> metoo' feature. This means when the manager sends out an email it omits the
>> sender from the distribution list.
>>
>> How easy would this be to add? I'd be happy to have a shot at doing it
>> myself, though I'd love some pointers as to which part of the source code to
>> look at. And of course, I wouldn't complain if someone else would like to do
>> it, but obviously I don't expect that!
>>
>>
> Well, I've looked a bit at the code before, and I think it's quite easy to
> accomplish: create a new option for activation/deactivation of this (would
> result in the touch of a file) and if present, compare the senders email
> with the ones in the list while looping and sending, and ommit sending when
> it is equal. Would be worth a shot trying to code, since I've run out of
> episodes of "One Piece" to look at :-)
> Let me see what I can come up with this evening.
>
> Btw, the latest version is at http://mlmmj.mmj.dk/files/, there's a bit of
> mixing up going on here: the website is http://mlmmj.org, the mailing list
> archive there points to http://mlmmj.org/archive/index.html, but the
> archive up to date is at http://mlmmj.org/archive/mlmmj/date.html
>
> Franky
>

Just checked, and I believe the changes for this need to be done in
mlmmj-send.c, in the functions send_mail_verp and send_mail_many_list, both
in the loop

for(i = 0; i < addrs->count; i++) {

==> comparing "from" with addrs->strs[i] and just "continue" when these are
equal should be ok ...

Of course then the new tunable needs to be checked etc ...

Franky

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3122 bytes --]

Re: 'Not metoo' feature

[Ben Schmidt]

>> As I think through the things in Mailman that I used to use
>> before deciding I'd like to switch, a feature I'd be interested
>> in having is a 'not metoo' feature. This means when the manager
>> sends out an email it omits the sender from the distribution list.
>
> Just checked, and I believe the changes for this need to be done in
> mlmmj-send.c, in the functions send_mail_verp and send_mail_many_list,
> both in the loop
>
> for(i = 0; i < addrs->count; i++) {
>
> => comparing "from" with addrs->strs[i] and just "continue" when these
> are equal should be ok ...
>
> Of course then the new tunable needs to be checked etc ...

Sounds like a good start. Ideally this would be selectable on a
per-subscriber basis. Perhaps best would be a notmetoo version of the
list (much like the nomail and digest versions), then subscribers could
have their preferred delivery method by subscribing to the right
version; a tunable could make the default +subscribe action a notmetoo
subscription.

Hmm. As I further my investigations into things that I have found useful
but which mlmmj doesn't have, I discover another, which is moderation
being choosable on a per-subscriber basis. You can get an approximation
of this using access rules, but after a little while and as list sizes
grow, this will quickly become cumbersome and inefficient. Making
another 'version' of the list, though, just starts to get ridiculous, as
combinations of different versions start to become possible and
desirable. I think to do this properly somehow the idea of
per-subscriber options needs to be given to mlmmj, and that's both a
sizeable job, and a bit of an upheaval to current practice. Perhaps
something to consider long term.

In the meantime, my most pressing need is what I originally wrote about,
and perhaps an easier short-term solution to this is just to allow an
exception list. Smartest may be to have two tunables: 'metoo' and
'notmetoo'; if neither exist, behaviour is as normal; if notmetoo
exists, senders are included in the distribution unless listed in the
notmetoo file; if metoo exists, senders are omitted from distribution
unless listed in the metoo file. I would usually use the metoo file,
then, but others may prefer the other.

Perhaps we could have some discussion about how these other
per-subscriber things could be implemented satisfactorily long-term
later.

I've pretty much finished my survey of things I'd like/find useful in
mlmmj now, and everything else is easier than the stuff mentioned in
this email. I'll raise the issues over time in new threads and hopefully
help make some patches.

Ben.

Re: 'Not metoo' feature

[Morten Shearman Kirkegaard]

On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 16:00 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
> I think to do this properly somehow the idea of per-subscriber options
> needs to be given to mlmmj, and that's both a sizeable job, and a bit
> of an upheaval to current practice. Perhaps something to consider long
> term.

A word of warning; I am a tiny bit conservative ;-)

> I've pretty much finished my survey of things I'd like/find useful in
> mlmmj now, and everything else is easier than the stuff mentioned in
> this email. I'll raise the issues over time in new threads and hopefully
> help make some patches.

I like that attitude! I hope to see some patches from you :-)

Morten

-- 
Morten Shearman Kirkegaard <moki@fabletech.com>
CTO, FableTech
http://fabletech.com/

Re: 'Not metoo' feature

[Ben Schmidt]

On 22/01/10 3:56 AM, Morten Shearman Kirkegaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 16:00 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
>> I think to do this properly somehow the idea of per-subscriber options
>> needs to be given to mlmmj, and that's both a sizeable job, and a bit
>> of an upheaval to current practice. Perhaps something to consider long
>> term.
>
> A word of warning; I am a tiny bit conservative ;-)

Understood! I will devote my mind to how these kinds of things could be
done as 'unintrusively' as possible and discuss before doing any serious
work.

>> I've pretty much finished my survey of things I'd like/find useful in
>> mlmmj now, and everything else is easier than the stuff mentioned in
>> this email. I'll raise the issues over time in new threads and hopefully
>> help make some patches.
>
> I like that attitude! I hope to see some patches from you :-)

Cheers! Well, I've made a little start now, and at least two patches
have been sent to the list for consideration!

I really like the coding style of mlmmj, by the way. Being visually
impaired, I love code which isn't full of blank lines, and lines
containing only braces, or excessive comments. The code in mlmmj is nice
and compact, and although comments are sparse, they are often there
where necessary, and it's fairly straightforward to deduce the purpose
and intent of the code.

Smiles,

Ben.

Re: 'Not metoo' feature

[Mads Martin Jørgensen]

On 25/01/2010, at 12.14, Ben Schmidt wrote:

> I really like the coding style of mlmmj, by the way. Being visually
> impaired, I love code which isn't full of blank lines, and lines
> containing only braces, or excessive comments. The code in mlmmj is nice
> and compact, and although comments are sparse, they are often there
> where necessary, and it's fairly straightforward to deduce the purpose
> and intent of the code.


This is the best compliment I've had in a long time! Thanks. Nice to see
someone noticing the intent one had when starting the project :)

-- 
Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
 and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
                                 -- A. P. J.